Here's a thought process: Dad was trying to make sense of things that did not make sense to him. These things that did not make sense to him were seen by him as ultimately dangerous, even to his own family. That compelled him to seek to find the truth about whether they are real threats. Along that journey, he became convinced that they were in fact real. He sought out the long term implications and those implications became his 10 predictions.
As a concrete example, he heard there was massive illegal immigration into the US. His first encounter with this information could have come from many places, Fox news, a Republican senator, RFK Jr.'s report from the border, or a story in the New York Post. He wondered, is it true or not that millions of people entered the US through the southern border, and, that this had been happening for many years? Was it also true that there was a fleet of 'NGOs' that were providing aid to these millions of people as they made there way to the US? Was it also true that these people were being further aided and extorted by cartel membership along the way? Was it also true that hundreds of thousands of children were 'missing'? Finally, was it true that the US was funding logistics to fly hundreds of thousands of Haitians into the US?
There is information on both sides of these questions. Plenty of accounts on X have information that it's all happening, and worse. But those who would know with authority, like Secretary Mayorkas, President Biden and VP Harris conclusively stated it was not happening at all.
Dad's sources from his investigation led him to believe there was a preponderance of truth. The son's that there was not, (presuming that he did an investigation). It's too bad that the different opinion became a wedge between them.
I am confident that most disagreements among people are an outcome of their differing sources of information during their lifetime. It's self-evident, but if they endeavoured to agree on what was true and what was not true first before developing opinions about those truths, the schism can largely be averted.
As a concrete example, he heard there was massive illegal immigration into the US. His first encounter with this information could have come from many places, Fox news, a Republican senator, RFK Jr.'s report from the border, or a story in the New York Post. He wondered, is it true or not that millions of people entered the US through the southern border, and, that this had been happening for many years? Was it also true that there was a fleet of 'NGOs' that were providing aid to these millions of people as they made there way to the US? Was it also true that these people were being further aided and extorted by cartel membership along the way? Was it also true that hundreds of thousands of children were 'missing'? Finally, was it true that the US was funding logistics to fly hundreds of thousands of Haitians into the US?
There is information on both sides of these questions. Plenty of accounts on X have information that it's all happening, and worse. But those who would know with authority, like Secretary Mayorkas, President Biden and VP Harris conclusively stated it was not happening at all.
Dad's sources from his investigation led him to believe there was a preponderance of truth. The son's that there was not, (presuming that he did an investigation). It's too bad that the different opinion became a wedge between them.
I am confident that most disagreements among people are an outcome of their differing sources of information during their lifetime. It's self-evident, but if they endeavoured to agree on what was true and what was not true first before developing opinions about those truths, the schism can largely be averted.